APHC010107322022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3310]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6501/2022 Between:

Kinthada Appa Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR COOPERATION

2. SRINIVAS BASAVA The Court made the following Order:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“….. to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in passing a resolution dated 04.02.2022 resolving to dismiss the petitioner as Chief Executive Officer of the 2^nd respondent bank basing on the enquiry report prepared under Sec.51 of The A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and set aside the same…….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the Chief Executive Officer of the 2^nd respondent society. The 5^th respondent issued five notices vide Rc.No.860/2019-D(1), dated 07.10.2020 directing the petitioner to attend the office of the 2^nd respondent on 09.11.2020 for enquiry under Section 60 of the Act. The petitioner filed W.P.No.20880 of 2020 challenging the said notices and this Court disposed of the writ petitions directing the authorities to serve material on the petitioner and afford an opportunity to submit an explanation to the said show cause notices. A further perusal of the notices shows that the Inquiry Officer had recommended for recovery of amounts stated in the notice. Without stating any reasons in the notices, the petitioner has been asked to attend enquiry with records. Earlier an order No.860/2019-D, dated 29.08.2020 was issued and the same shows that an enquiry was alleged to be conducted under Section 51 of the Act and basing on the same, a resolution was alleged to have been passed by the Executive Committee on 26.02.2020. The petitioner was asked to submit the explanation on the review report of the District Co-Operative Officer, the petitioner has not submitted the same and refused to receive the notice and absented from the duties. Therefore, the 4^th respondent pursuant to proceedings No.860/2019, dated 29.08.2020 placed the petitioner under suspension. The impugned proceedings have not been served on the petitioner. While so, the 3^rd respondent has passed a resolution dated 04.02.2022 taking a decision to dismiss the petitioner from service basing on the enquiry report prepared under Section 51 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Though the writ petition is filed in the year 2022, the respondents

2 and 3 have not filed any counter till date. Therefore, the right of filing of counter for respondents 2 and 3 is forfeited as per Rule 12(1) of Writ Proceeding Rules, 1977.

4. Heard Mr.G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared virtually through video conferencing; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation, for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 as well as Mr.S.Kartheek, learned counsel representing Mr.Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, no independent enquiry has been conducted and Section 51 of the enquiry report may be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence, but the same cannot be treated as an enquiry report. He further submits that, the petitioner was suspended on charges of misappropriation of social funds, during the Section 51 hearing held in the Member Society, was subjected to a domestic inquiry and the petitioner was found guilty. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent does not have any right to initiate any action in relation